66 taken account of as a cost of production." Adam Smith's dictum that economic processes are only "incidents in a larger moral order," seems to have been entirely forgotten. The advent of the jointstock company and the shareholder served still further to increase the irresponsibility of proprietorship and management-and the conception of industry as merely a profit-making mechanism became the dominant feature of the employers' tradition. In this century, conditions of trading for the masters, as for the men, have greatly improved. Competition is more restricted and less chaotic, the organisation of business upon a large scale is more common. But the evil legacy remains. In the employer's consciousness of the present the social responsibility of owners and managers is greatly obscured, and, further, the workman is still conceived as a mere item in the cost of production rather than as a citizen fulfilling a social function. Until there is a radical alteration in respect of these ruling ideas, social unrest " may be expected to continue. The workman is put on a level with the machine he operates. No increase in wages or improvement in working conditions can atone for the loss of a sense of social function. Just as the men fail to realise the complexity of the economic issue, so also do the masters fail, most usually, to see that there is a social aspect to the problem. 66 II. So far, this analysis of the social structure might have been applied to almost any industrial country, and, so far, it promises little in respect of internal cohesion or social unity. In Australia, worse follows; the social function of the more important occupations having been obscured, an attempt has been made to solve the resulting problems by political means. To social and economic ills, a political remedy has been applied. Since the appearance of the Australian Labour Party in 1893 66 66 "6 craft-unionism " has gradually changed its character and become political unionism, its fundamental tenet, once again, being the Marxian conception of the class-war." The advent of the Labour Party and the political ideal for it is political—of one big union were probably necessary in order to overcome the impersonal opposition of the rapidly developing capitalistic system, necessary, also, in order to bring society to realise that workers must be treated at least as citizens. But the effect has been socially unfortunate. Here in Australia the process is more complete than in in other countries; industrial grievances have been generalised into a political party issue. Society is described as the scene of a struggle between a group of masters and a group of men—an analysis which disregards the fundamental facts of human nature and social organisation. The social fabric is rent asunder right across the majority of the larger occupational groups, and every industrial function tends to lose sight of its social end and justification. The political division does nothing to mend the industrial breach, to re-achieve an integral unity. Rather, it stereotypes and makes permanent the artificial fissure, thus retarding healthy growth. Economic problems can only be solved by economic means; in Australia the political and economic activities of society are hopelessly confused. It is practically impossible to discuss economic problems -much less to solve them. Every economic difficulty is immediately generalised as a political issue-witness the conscription campaign-the public takes sides, and thereafter public discussion implies emphasis of one aspect and suppression of other, equally vital, aspects of the problem. This serves only to divert attention from real and urgent issues, which often are not even placed before the public. So long as this condition of affairs persists we may say, with Comte, that we cannot expect to have stability in our civilisation or unity and peace in our social life. The manner in which the political division exacerbates industrial difficulties may best be illustrated by brief reference to the recent railway strike in New South Wales. The conscription campaign of 1916 left behind it much bitterness, and left also in the minds of many unionists a conviction that the war was being made use of to deprive trade unions of their hard-won privileges. This impression was sedulously fostered by the Labour Press. Early in 1917, there was a general election in New South Wales. The Nationalists forswore conscription; and the election surprised both parties by resulting in an overwhelming victory for Mr. Holman and his Nationalist colleagues. The Federal elections followed, with a similar result, and the unions, thoroughly alarmed and distrustful of the Nationalist election pledges, formed anti-conscription committees. Rightly or wrongly, public rumour attributed to these committees the intention of organising a general strike. No doubt with this in mind, the Minister for Labour in the new Holman Cabinet, Mr. Beeby, publicly announced that the unions would no longer be allowed to create industrial chaos at will. The Labour newspapers made much of this pronouncement, interpreting it as a direct threat against unionism. And the Railway Commissioners chose this moment for introducing a new card-system and refusing to listen to any suggestion of compromise. The Labour Party concluded that this was the threatened attack on trade-unionism. it is the gloomiest feature of the present trouble that for many months there have been rumours abroad that capitalism in New South Wales was going to use to the full the State power regained by playing on the patriotic feelings of the people last March The trouble developed in two ways-first, Mr. Fuller, the Acting-Premier, instead of retaining for the Government the role of third party and authoritative mediator, gave his unqualified support to the Railway Commissioners; second, the area of industrial disturbance was 66 greatly increased by "sympathy" striking. The unions appointed a strike committee to control their affairs; the employers of Sydney retaliated by meeting daily to devise means of supporting Mr. Fuller and the Railway Commissioners. These events had the effect of broadening the issue to a struggle between "Capitalism" and "Industrialism," and, further, gave a semblance of “rebellion" and "red-rag revolution ” to the action of the railway employees-a development ⚫ for which they were not primarily to blame. At once the controversy became extremely bitter. A Labour newspaper, in a leading article, entitled "Capitalistic Bludgeoning," declared that the Government was "playing a desperate game in order to give unionism a smash from which it is hoped it will take many years to recover." The other side retorted by asserting that the strike was inevitable and had to come. This is no strike born, as some would have us believe, of political discontent and industrial unrest. It is something of a far more sinister nature, and the great body of the strikers are merely the dupes of clever schemers who do not belong to Australia at all." There can be no neutrality in a fight of this kind. We must either range ourselves on the side of constitutional government or on the side of treason and anarchy.” 66 66 Enough has been said to show the danger to society of political organisation upon class " lines. The smallest disagreement or misunderstanding is liable to extend immediately into a rift that splits the community from end to end-a chasm across which no bridge can be thrown. This state of affairs is the result of a mistaken political development and is not to be cured by "better organisation" or the advent of a "strong man." The stronger the man and the better the organisation, the more hopeless is the consequent rift-for the whole movement is definitely anti-social. In Australia the so-called "Liberal" and "Labour " parties do not even begin to understand each other, and make no attempt to do so. Each party has its own special social logic, and each party concentrates its gaze upon a particular part only of the social structure, and disregards all else. The "Liberal" consciousness is patriotic," but by tradition and sentiment rather than reason; it accepts this part of its social creed uncritically and, since it does not study social philosophy at all, without any real comprehension of social obligation. "Liberal" leaders are well equipped to deal with legal and commercial problems, but are entirely ignorant of political and economic science; for this reason, no doubt, they tend to visualise society as a vast master and servant " arrangement and to be irritable if "orders are not obeyed. Yet there is nothing in the political history of civilisation which would lead us to conclude that capacity to manage a factory or wool store is of itself sufficient mental equipment for a legislator. The experience of recent years would seem to suggest that just as it is unwise to place the politician in control of commerce, so also is it unwise to place the commercial man in control of politics. 66 The Labour consciousness is the result of much study and thought-though of a narrow, and often perverted, kind. For this latter defect the rank and file of the Labour Party cannot be held to blame. For a century at least, society has been even more careless of working-class minds than of workingclass bodies. Democracy gave workers a vote, but no instruction how to use it; the State conceded the right to form unions and to strike, but taught its citizens nothing of human nature and that mutual dependence which is the essence of social organisation. What wonder if, with many obvious disabilities and injustices before their eyes, the workers accepted the guidance of the agitator and social revolutionary. That more harm has not been done is witness of the sanity and strong commonsense of the British workman. But although this is so, the time has come when the movement |